JUDGMENT :

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The petitioner has filed writ petition WPO 2768 of 2022 on 28.9.2022 and WPO 772 of 2023 on 29.3.2023. The first petition was filed challenging a show-cause notice issued by the respondent Union Bank of India on 27.6.2022 and an order passed by the Identification Committee of the said Bank on 8.9.2022. The second writ petition was filed thereafter challenging an order dated 28.2.2023 of the Review Committee of the Bank. Since the basis of challenge to the show-cause notice as well as the two orders are factually similar, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this judgment.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of the Identification Committee dated 8.9.2022 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Counsel submits that the Bank proceeded to pass the impugned order without furnishing copies of the documents referred to in the show-cause notice to the petitioner. Counsel submits that since the order of the Identification Committee dated 8.9.2022 is vitiated, the order passed by the Review Committee thereafter on 28.2.2023 should also be quashed and set aside.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Union Bank of India refers to the show-cause notice, the order of the Identification Committee and the order of the Review Committee to refute the charge of breach of principles of natural justice. Counsel submits that the Bank followed the dispute redressal mechanism under the Master Circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India and that the petitioner was given sufficient notice and to make a representation to the show-cause notice and also to appear for personal hearing. Counsel submits that the argument of the petitioner not being supplied with relevant documents is factually incorrect since the “Forensic Audit Report” and the “CDR proceedings” were not referred to in the show-cause notice and hence the question of making these documents available to the petitioner did not arise.

4. The undisputed facts are as follows. The Identification Committee fixed the hearing on 5.8.2022; the petitioner however sent a letter through his advocate on 3.8.2022 in the form a representation which was received by the Identification Committee only on 10.8.2022. The petitioner did not deal with any of the points raised by the Bank in the impugned show-cause notice on the alleged defaults and specifically did not make any request for documents or evidence allegedly mentioned in the show-cause notice. The petitioner on the other hand asked for a copy of the Forensic Audit Report which was not even referred to in the show-cause notice. The petitioner remained absent on the date of hearing i.e. 5.8.2022.

5. The Identification Committee therefore proceeded with the hearing and intimated the impugned order passed by the Identification Committee to the petitioner by a letter dated 8.9.2022. The petitioner also chose not to approach the Review Committee from the order passed by the Identification Committee and did not ask for any documents mentioned in the show-cause notice or in the order passed by the Identification Committee. The Review Committee hence passed the impugned order dated 28.2.2023 confirming the order of the Identification Committee.

6. The Mechanism for Identification of Wilful Defaulters under the Master Circular, 2015, provides for a 3-step process which is as follows:

7. The first step involves a 3-Member Committee consisting of two senior officers of the rank of General Manager, Deputy General Manager headed by an Executive Director or equivalent which examines the evidence of a willful default on the part of a borrower and its promoter/whole-time director. The second step consists of the conclusion arrived at by the First Committee that an event of willful default has occurred. If the First Committee/Identification Committee comes to such a conclusion, the First Committee issues a show cause notice to the borrower and its promoters/whol